code-reviewlisted

# Evidence-Based Code Review Review the requested code or diff in repository context. Load applicable language/framework skills and follow repository instructions before judging conventions. ## Scope - Review the user-specified target. For uncommitted work, inspect the complete diff and relevant call paths rather than auditing unrelated code. - Treat reviewing, drafting comments, posting comments, and implementing fixes as distinct actions. Short confirmations inherit the current requested action; agreement with a finding does not authorize implementation. Require an explicit implementation request before editing project source or switching branches to apply a fix, and clarify ambiguous transitions. Isolated temporary reproduction tests remain appropriate during review. - Distinguish regressions introduced by the change from pre-existing issues. - Use `blast-radius`, when explicitly invoked and available, when the primary task is to trace what a concrete change could break beyond the obvious diff and prove its decision-critical safety assumptions. - Do not broaden a focused review into an architecture, dependency, formatting, or security program without approval. ## Finding Standard Report an issue only when you can explain: 1. The concrete failure or maintainability cost. 2. The reachable code path or credible conditions that trigger it. 3. The actual impact and proportionate severity. 4. The smallest practical correction. Use file paths and line numbers. Do not infla